Of course it all depends on the final product but for me this is a letdown and I'd rather have a D800 as a sidekick to MFDB camera. What do you think guys?Also how probable do you think these specs are- I think I would like to have more mp... at least something near D800. I'm thinking about pre-ordering D800E and I've been waiting with the finger on my trigger for 5d MKIII specs.

Nikon's D800 camera was brave, but I would guess Canon's is closer to what the masses actually want.

In this forum there's a lot of landscape photographers, and we like MP. But most rather want high ISO performance and not too much MP. I don't think Canon will be close to Sony Exmor sensor in D800 in DR at low ISO, but high ISO it will probably be competitive and that is more important for sales.

I'm myself a 5D mark II owner, and I don't feel in a hurry to upgrade. Had it been an high MP camera I would be more tempted. But now I'm seriously considering MF instead...

Well the big question of course is low light performance and dynamic range. But if D800/D800E is superior in this department, Nikon should be the winner for landscape/architecture/product photo (and that's my field of interest). I hope we will know soon..

Your just saying that because the 645D only comes in one flavor but they are and they aren't. They Aren't overrated when more megapixels translates to a bigger sensor which translates to bigger pixels which translates to more dynamic ranger etc etc. However, cramming more MP into a smaller sensor like the D800/D800e or that 41mp Nokia camera phone, won't do anything significant to alter image quality. I actually think the 5D MK III will perform nicer for video and at standard ISO's because they kept the MP count down, so you would hope that they boosted other relevant factors.

I shoot ISO 100 in studio almost exclusively. I print big, always! Print is the final destination for all of my images. I proof images at 24"x30" or 24"x36". I am just in the process of selling my six 4x5 cameras (1 left.)

I pre-ordered the Nikon 800E when it was announced and was looking forward to it. However, I took a look at sample Canon 1DX images rezzed up and compared side-by-side to the Nikon 800.

Canon 1DX ISO 400 rezzed up was better on noise than NIKON 800 100 ISO. If the 5D3 performs as well as the 1DX - which I would expect from previous history - I am going to cancel my 800E order.

More pixels of equal quality is better. More pixels in the same sensor space, as someone mentioned, is at best a wash. In many cases the edge will go to the better quality pixels because of the increased processing power in Lightroom or PS on an i7 CPU compared to in-camera processing.

We will have to see what the dynamic range looks like. I think the new Canon's have the A/D converter on the sensor? That was supposedly Sony's key advantage in capturing with low noise and higher dynamic range. Although with controlled studio lighting, absolutute dynamic range is not as critically important, as I can control contrast with my lighting.

If I had a 5D2 would I upgrade? Maybe not. But based on previous history I probably would wind up upgrading, just because of the improvements in the Digic 5 processing, and the likely video improvements with a new generation (like the Nikon 22 level sound management in camera, etc.)

Plus the 5D2 was 3 years between upgrades. So if it fits, may as well get in early if you are going to own a camera for 4-5 years.

Assuming these specs are correct, is there anything the canon 5d3 will do better than the new nikon D800e?

A higher frame rate (it is in the rumor specs, and expected with fewer pixels to read and process). For many potential customers, that could be enough reason to prefer it, which is good, because it is about the only advantage that there is much real reason to expect from what we have seen in the past plus believing this rumor. In fact, frame rate might be the main real reason the makers of 35mm format DSLRs have ever sacrificed resolution.

As has been argued many times, there is little evidence to indicate that when printing or displaying at equal size, there will be any significant advantage in noise or such at any ISO speed, except when you go close enough to see smeared detail in the lower res. image in place of more detail plus more noise in the higher res. alternative. And that can be corrected with NR processing if you prefer the smearing to the noise.

However, people who view 22MP files at a smaller size than 36MP files (such as viewing both at 100% on screen) will probably see less noise in the image displayed at a smaller size. Then again, my contact prints usually look so fantastically sharp and grain free that the 8"x10" prints are often a disappointment in comparison.

P. S. mmurph: how did the up-ressed 1DX images compare to the D800 images for sharpness and detail when viewed large enough to see the full resolution of the D800 images? Upsampling adds neither noise nor resolution, so I would expect the D800 images to have more of both.

I held off buying the 5D2 because after much testing it just wasn't that much of an upgrade to spend $5K on two bodies for basically 1/2 stop of better ISO (the 5D does better at 1600 and upped a stop in post production IMO) and slower AF than the 5D. Plus those horrible shadows if you shoot for highlights! I'm very interested in the 5D3 and feel Canon may finally have their heads removed from their posterior with the firing of the CEO a few months ago and their 1Dx announcement seeming to get it right for the sports crowd. If the 5D3 is a good step up with dynamic range, shadow noise, high ISO and af performance this will be my camera. 22mp is plenty enough for me and I have zero interest in 36mp in a 35mm camera. Although I'd rather have 16 megapixels with 16 bit color ;-). 35mm means higher volume shooting particularly at weddings in my case and 22mp is already a bit too much. Anything more than that means buying a new computer for me. Although I do appreciate the added resolution offered with 22mp. Now it better not be $3500 and would be perfect at $3k or under.

The 36x24mm sensor of the rumored Canon 5D Mk III is larger than 99.9% of all digital camera sensors and larger than about 90% or more of DSLR sensors, so this section for "... and Large Sensor Photography" works for me! ("Medium Format" is a bit puzzling though.)

Well, since DSLRs are trying to bite off a part of MF market (at least Nikon marketing tries to do it with their 36 mp 'policy') and there's a tendency to switch from MFDB to DSLR (at least in product/architecture photography) I do find this topic relevant in this section. Also as an owner of MFDB for a couple of years I am always looking for a good/best solution to back up/complement my main system.. and we live in interesting times- these 'backup' solutions start to take over the field of work of the main workhorses..

My impression is that 5DIII is a better camera than the 5DII in general, better AF and better sealing. My guess is that they didn't want the old 5DII to compete head on with the 1Ds series, but they made a rethink with the D800 hanging around the door.

Regarding sensor I guess that we can compare Nikon's and Canon's APS-C offerings the D7000 and the EOS 60D and it seems that the Nikon is better in high ISO noise, too. On the other hand I understand that Nikon handles read noise differently from Canon.

Officially, the specification is already known. 4 years ago I talked with the producers of MF on the introduction of a prism with a transparent screen. (To display the grid, important information, but also masks - depending on what you have plugged the sensor). This caused only a smile. Can be? As you can see it was possible What I think about the new Canon? I will test, compare with Nikon. Of course, I share the results. Do not forget that this is just a tool. Do you replace the MF? I think that far it is not possible. But ... Can complement your basic tools ...

Logged

Best regards,DF

-------------------------------------------WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE-------------------------------------------